A. Faculty Senate received
the GEC Report and little to no comments were made at the meeting. George
Cravins thanked the GEC for its hard work. Some questions arose regarding
assessment and there was some concern that the outcomes were too specific.
Emily’s take on where to go from here is to proceed with the summer design team
and to begin developing a plan for ongoing, continuous assessment.

B. The Service Learning
Workshop is Friday, April 22 from 10am to 2pm in Valhalla. There are still
some spots open, and Emily encouraged committee members to attend.

C. UWL reapplied for the
VISTA grant for a volunteer to help coordinate service learning between UWL
students and the community. The grant was approved for a second year.

III. Brief Committee Reports

A. Structure – The
Structure Subcommittee did not meet last week but plans to meet tomorrow
(Tuesday, April 19). The topic of discussion will be the make-up and
priorities of the design team.

B. Assessment – Sandy
reported that all of the classroom assessments have gone out and asked who would
be willing to continue working on them in the summer.

1. Summer activities – Two teams were supported last year with a $1000 stipend
for their work. Emily would like to continue that this summer and support
a design team as well. She will meet with the business office to make sure
enough money is available.

2. English 110 & WE – Terry Beck distributed the report from the English 110
pilot assessment done by the English Department in 2003. The WE survey is
ready to go, but has not yet been sent out.

Emily reiterated how important various and ongoing assessment is and Sandy
mentioned she would like to see more emphasis on embedded assessment in courses
next year. One way to encourage this could be through planning some
faculty development workshops early in the fall.

IV. Old Business

A. Ad hoc committee on
outcomes – A fair amount of time was spent discussing the revised learning
outcomes. Eric Kraemer explained that the newest revisions were the result
of an attempt to make sure that a variety of faculty/departments felt
represented. Cris Prucha also proposed the addition of a new “Information
and Technology Literacy” category. Several members thanked the committee
for their hard work. Considerable discussion occurred about what
information was missing, what information was redundant, and what information
was not an entirely inclusive or accurate portrayal of specific outcome areas.
Emily pointed out that the work the ad hoc committee did was amazing and
appreciated, but was beyond its original charge and perhaps the result of an
error in direction given to the committee. The outcomes were originally
designed to articulate what it is that a well educated person should look like,
and not be based on courses in the current program.

The committee asked the ad hoc group to go back and rethink some wording, look
again at categories, and formally invite feedback from various parts of campus.
It was recommended that the invitation be accompanied by a cover sheet
explaining that the focus is programmatic and outlining what the GEC feels is
central to a core curriculum (the arts, humanities, natural sciences and social
sciences).

Comments and/or suggestions should be sent to Eric by Monday, April 25.

B. Writing Coordinator
Proposal – Terry Beck distributed a memo that recommended that GE continue to
provide a ¼ release time position for the administration of General Education
Writing Programs. A concern was raised that the GEC should not have to fund
something that is a university-wide commitment/requirement and that perhaps the
funding should come from the Provost.

M/S/P to recommend that there be a line item in
the budget to create a ¼ time position established for a person to oversee
Writing Emphasis/WIMP, not to come from the Innovations in General Education
Fund.

V. New Business

A. University Honors Program
– Chris Bakkum and Deb Hoskins presented their proposed revisions to the
University Honors Program, the core of which are the problem solving and
integration of knowledge learning outcomes. They asked the committee to
share their thoughts on what the targeted student population should be for the
Honors Program. Discussion occurred about whether or not this proposed
program is in line with a “traditional” honors program. In order to give
members a chance to think about what feedback they might want to give, the topic
will be revisited at the May 2nd meeting.

B. Priorities for Summer
Design Team – The structure team is meeting tomorrow and would like some
direction about what the GEC thinks are the highest priorities that need to come
in the form of recommendations for improvement in fall. A recommendation
was made that the First Year Experience be a high priority. Other ideas
for priorities or for faculty who could be on the team can be sent to the
structure subcommittee before tomorrow’s meeting.